Good shoot or no? Atlanta Chief resigns.

[RedCardinalSeven]

And then again why would the cops chase him down and have to shoot him over a DUI.
they knew who he was they had his car and ID.
They talked to him for a half hour before this all went down.
Stupid on his part and stupid on the cops part.

I think the Taser was a decisive factor. Had he not taken it he might not have been chased although police officers are subject to the fight-or-flight effects of adrenalin just like everyone else. Moreover, they are trained and expected to apprehend criminal suspects especially when those suspects have assaulted the officers trying to apprehend them. That said, if Brooks had dropped the Taser or even just not pointed/fired it he would probably still be alive. Under the circumstances, I think it's really unfair to call the cops "stupid".

 

[arakboss]

Yep that true but I still think it was stupid on all sides.
But this is what I think is going to happen .
There going to say even if he did use the tazer on one cop there was another one there so there is no way he could have got his gun.
And with the way things are .
The chief quitting the mayor won't back the cops .
They better get good lawyers.

Let's see, there were two fully abled body cops there when the suspect grabbed the tazer. Why would one partly incapacitated cop and the other cop now be able to prevent the suspect from grabbing one of there firearms when two fully abled body cops weren't able to prevent the suspect from grabbing the tazer?

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

I do have to add , it's never good to shoot anyone in the back.. Had it been me or you we would be serving time for that shoot most likely.. But, then again, we are not suppose to go and apprehend a suspect who is fleeing either.

As I mentioned earlier, it is lawful for a civilian or a police officer to shoot someone in the back to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another person. If you saw an armed person standing, with their back to you, over another person whom you knew they had already wounded and you believed they were going to shoot the victim again wouldn't you shoot them in the back?

 

[EPS]

Let's see, there were two fully abled body cops there when the suspect grabbed the tazer. Why would one partly incapacitated cop and the other cop now be able to prevent the suspect from grabbing one of there firearms when two fully abled body cops weren't able to prevent the suspect from grabbing the tazer?

There not aloud to use the choke hold.
What I was trying to say is if he did take one cop and try to get his gun then the other cop would have been fully justified in shooting him dead dead dead.
But because he was running away .
They got there work cut out for them.
I never said .
Good shoot or bad shoot.
I'm just saying it is going to be a big fight.

 

[4Freedom]

As I mentioned earlier, it is lawful for a civilian or a police officer to shoot someone in the back to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another person. If you saw an armed person standing, with their back to you, over another person whom you knew they had already wounded and you believed they were going to shoot the victim again wouldn't you shoot them in the back?

Interesting.. Yeah, I guess i never thought of it.. I've taken multiple all day legal courses on self-defense and firearm laws and I have had instructors have conflicting information on this information and some laws do vary state to state. Obtaining about 8 different concealed handgun licenses (two required written tests and live fire tests) and taking some other defensive firearm courses, I have still been confused on some of the nuances in these type of situations. I've also watched numerous legal videos and attempted to decipher various state laws on the issue. I also do think its the jurisdiction you are located in (e.g. Seattle, WA vs Lubbock, TX), but also do feel police have a bit more immunity than the average citizen, especially in certain scenarios that a civilian would not be put in (such as chasing down a fleeing suspect).

Well, I feel if I would have shot a guy in the back holding a taser it would be a very hard case for a civilian like me to fight in court.. The family will say he was running away with a non lethal weapon and I bet in some places I may get seriously reamed depending on where I am located.

Of course, one thing I am always taught is never shoot someone in the back. Probably because it does get very sticky when you have to go to court and deal with it. But, if it is a heat of the moment issue, I was punched in the face he is running and turns at me with the weapon and I shoot him , not realizing he quickly turned his back again and shot him I guess that could be a good argument in court. You feared for your life he turned at you and attempted to use a weapon at you and you were full of adrenaline.

I also do not believe anyone wouldn't really be justified to use self-defense against a taser. IT can cause serious bodily injury and harm and an average citizen might actually have a good case they had no clue what that thing he was holding would do them. Tasers have certainly killed people as well. I was also told improper training of taser can increase chances of lethal injury.


Hopefully Atlanta hasn't disbanded their police unions yet. These guys will need some serious defense funds going up against their own mayor, DA and a very biased jury I bet. Fulton county is not a good place to be a cop.. There are places in Atlanta I have been told cops just don't go to this day. I know many people are supporting these officers and they should have their job re-instated. Cities declaring war on their police departments for doing their job (as challenging as it is) will come back to haunt them when the police all quit and they are stuck with a lawless city. Anyone remember the heavily armed mall cop with the web camera patrolling the ghetto mall in downtown Atlanta?

Personally, I think if you attack a cop and try stealing his weapons (whatever they are) while he is arresting you for committing a crime should almost qualify as justified use of lethal force or a very good a** whooping. Why should they try to spare a guy who is literally trying to kill them? He would have just as well went for the cop's gun and many people have killed cops with their own guns.. It's way more common than people think. In fact, I bet more cops are killed with their own guns by criminals than black people are killed by white cops committing racist acts of police brutality.

 

[EPS]

 

[EPS]

Out of order but here is his first video.

 

[EPS]

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Interesting.. Yeah, I guess i never thought of it.. I've taken multiple all day legal courses on self-defense and firearm laws and I have had instructors have conflicting information on this information and some laws do vary state to state. Obtaining about 8 different concealed handgun licenses (two required written tests and live fire tests) and taking some other defensive firearm courses, I have still been confused on some of the nuances in these type of situations. I've also watched numerous legal videos and attempted to decipher various state laws on the issue. I also do think its the jurisdiction you are located in (e.g. Seattle, WA vs Lubbock, TX), but also do feel police have a bit more immunity than the average citizen, especially in certain scenarios that a civilian would not be put in (such as chasing down a fleeing suspect).

Well, I feel if I would have shot a guy in the back holding a taser it would be a very hard case for a civilian like me to fight in court.. The family will say he was running away with a non lethal weapon and I bet in some places I may get seriously reamed depending on where I am located.

Of course, one thing I am always taught is never shoot someone in the back. Probably because it does get very sticky when you have to go to court and deal with it. But, if it is a heat of the moment issue, I was punched in the face he is running and turns at me with the weapon and I shoot him , not realizing he quickly turned his back again and shot him I guess that could be a good argument in court. You feared for your life he turned at you and attempted to use a weapon at you and you were full of adrenaline.

I also do not believe anyone wouldn't really be justified to use self-defense against a taser. IT can cause serious bodily injury and harm and an average citizen might actually have a good case they had no clue what that thing he was holding would do them. Tasers have certainly killed people as well. I was also told improper training of taser can increase chances of lethal injury.

Hopefully Atlanta hasn't disbanded their police unions yet. These guys will need some serious defense funds going up against their own mayor, DA and a very biased jury I bet. Fulton county is not a good place to be a cop.. There are places in Atlanta I have been told cops just don't go to this day. I know many people are supporting these officers and they should have their job re-instated. Cities declaring war on their police departments for doing their job (as challenging as it is).

Personally, I think if you attack a cop and try stealing his weapons (whatever they are) while he is arresting you for committing a crime should almost qualify as justified use of lethal force. Why should they try to spare a guy who is literally trying to kill them. He would have just as well went for the cop's gun and many people have killed cops with their own guns.. It's way more common than people think. In fact, I bet more cops are killed with their own guns by criminals than black people are killed by white cops committing racist acts of police brutality.

You make some very good points and raise some good questions. I'm surprised you've always been "taught [to] never shoot someone in the back". That's actually kind of a problem because in the unlikely and unfortunate event that you ever did have to lawfully shoot someone in the back a good prosecutor would use that against you: "Members of the jury, the defendant was repeatedly trained not to shoot someone in the back and, yet, he disregarded that training and shoot shot poor, innocent so-and-so in the back."

There are scenarios other than the one I suggested where shooting someone in the back would be reasonable and lawful. Greg Ellifritz of Active Response Training has an informative overview of the subject here: "Shot in the Back! How does it happen?"

 

[4Freedom]

You make some very good points and raise some good questions. I'm surprised you've always been "taught [to] never shoot someone in the back". That's actually kind of a problem because in the unlikely and unfortunate event that you ever did have to lawfully shoot someone in the back a good prosecutor would use that against you: "Members of the jury, the defendant was repeatedly trained not to shoot someone in the back and, yet, he disregarded that training and shoot poor, innocent so-and-so in the back."

There are scenarios other than the one I suggested where shooting someone in the back would be reasonable and lawful. Greg Ellifritz of Active Response Training has an informative overview of the subject here: "Shot in the Back! How does it happen?"

@RedCardinalSeven , interestingly , I remember in my Utah concealed handgun course I took in Colorado a little over a year ago that my instructor was a former senior FBI agent and former military Special Forces. This guy taught the course in a much different way than LEO instructors I had in my other courses. He really gave a different view on firearm laws than the instructors I had who were mainly senior Sheriff deputies, Highway Patrolman, State Police, etc. All were certified NRA instructors. However, this one guy who was the former FBI agent actually taught us that it was acceptable to shoot someone in the back in certain situations and it shocked me. In fact ,I remember questioning in him the class telling him how in my North Carolina class the instructor said you can never shoot anyone in the back. I remember he saying in the right situation it could be justified, such as if they are holding a weapon, in your home and not running out the door (Castle Doctrine) you could shoot them in the back. It was shocking me and another reason why now I really don't know what is correct. I just got my Tennessee handgun carry permit and my instructor was a retired TN State Police officer and firearm trainer for the State Police and told me you absolutely never shoot someone in the back! Hahah, and I said, but my other instructor who was former FBI said you could!

Hahaha, I guess I better go with the FBI agent instructor's advice (at least if I end up in court for this) if I ever am in a situation I literally ever have to defend myself in a life-death scenario where the perpetrator somehow ended up turning his back in a split second.

After reviewing that video closer I can see the officer literally engages the guy right as he pulls out his taser and it appears he fires the pistol behind the barrier of the car right as the guy turns his back. It appeared he was pretty terrified he would get hit by that taser. Cannot blame him... I wouldn't want to be tased at all , even if I wasn't carrying a gun the suspect would very likely take off my body.

 

[4Freedom]

Great info in this video EPS! I guess this guy will now be eulogized as another gentle giant massacred by evil white police brutality.

I am getting sick of even reading the news anymore. I tend to just follow independent journalists these days.

 

[bmtm09]

Even after the tazer barbs have been deployed the gun itself can still be used as a stun gun. If they had not stopped him right there and he got away he would still have been armed. If he escaped and attacked someone with that now stun gun the cops would be on the line for a perp using their weapon against a civilian. Stopping him there was the right call. Getting shot was also his call. Throughout the interaction with the police officers he made a decision and it was a bad one.

 

[Member 5605]

As a matter of fact in Georgia.
It is .
They have convicted people for it.
But now all of a sudden it's not.
Any way back to the topic this one is tricky.
I would say why would he have a knock down drag out fight with two cops over a obvious DUI.
And then again why would the cops chase him down and have to shoot him over a DUI.
they knew who he was they had his car and ID.
They talked to him for a half hour before this all went down.
Stupid on his part and stupid on the cops part.

Understand I said what I said to dig out more discussions.

 

[revjen45]

The intended consequence is that the cops will do only what is absolutely necessary to avoid being crucified in the DNC Agitprop Media.
Then they can whine about how POC are being denied their due and the cops are all racist pigs.
"You don't need guns because the police can protect you" + "Defund/Abolish the police" = Cognitive dissonance.

 

[rscinsc]

A taser is not, by itself a deadly weapon.
Tasers can, and have been deployed thousands of times where Deadly Force is not authorized...so the guy from the Video above is biased (although he keeps saying he is not).

As for the Rayshard Brooks shooting: I think it will come down to which 'experts' the jury believes.

Expert 1. Taking a Taser, from a LEO who is all alone OR in close proximity to a LEO is most definitely a legitimate time to use deadly force. As stated, it can render the LEO incapacitated for a period of time where the suspect could take the LEOs weapon, and kill them. Pretty straight forward. Remember the shooting in North Charleston (Walter Scott), that LEO moved the Taser closer to the body. I am sure he was going to argue / Testa-lie, that Walter Scott was still fighting him.
However, there was video....so he got burned.
Expert 2. Taking a Taser, and firing it from 15 feet away, while running is probably NOT a legitimate time to use deadly force; especially, when you know you have backup behind you.

Experts on both sides will argue these 2 points.

Bottom line:
--The LEO will be charged, he will be acquitted in court (look at the stats in Georgia about convicting LEO for crimes).
--The Feds, will NOT pursue charges (unless this drags on, and Biden wins the election).
--The LEO will then either go to work as a Sheriff's Deputy 6 months later OR fight their dismissal, and take a settlement, then go work for a Sheriff's Office.
--Atlanta will pay $3.5MM in a settlement, while of course not admitting fault.
--Taxpayers will foot the bill for everything.

Pretty easy script to play out.

 

[RedCardinalSeven]

Expert 1. Taking a Taser, from a LEO who is all alone OR in close proximity to a LEO is most definitely a legitimate time to use deadly force. As stated, it can render the LEO incapacitated for a period of time where the suspect could take the LEOs weapon, and kill them. Pretty straight forward. Remember the shooting in North Charleston (Walter Scott), that LEO moved the Taser closer to the body. I am sure he was going to argue / Testa-lie, that Walter Scott was still fighting him.

However, there was no video.

Actually, there was a video of the shooting of Walter Scott by Michael Slager (who was sentenced to 20 years in prison). Any "expert" who says there wasn't is misinformed or dishonest. It's not clear from the video what Slager moved or why.

As for the "argue / Testa-lie" bit, most officers, and the overwhelming majority of non-LEO suspects, charged with a crime never testify on their own behalf. An "expert" should know this.

Some shootings are reasonable and lawful. However, no shootings are good, they're all bad. Bad for the shooter and, usually, worse for the one who is shot (for a possible counter-example see the recent case of Nikolas Fernandez and Dan Gregory) .

There's a lot I don't know but I am sure no good can come from the willingness of so many elected/appointed public officials and mainstream media personalities and "experts" to reflexively jump to the conclusion that every shooting that fits, or can be forced into, a certain pattern is a racist use of force. Empirical evidence suggests there is no epidemic of wanton killings of innocent Black people by racist cops who murder with impunity. At best (for the BLM types), the evidence is contradictory and inconclusive.

Sure, some killings by police could be racist murders and society should be and is concerned about that. However, for example, the only evidence of racism that I know of in Derek Chauvin's case is the color of Chauvin's skin. But isn't it racist to make such a conclusion solely or mainly on the basis of the color of someone's skin?

Blacks lives do matter, there's too much violence--police and civilian--in America, too many people are behind bars, police are often expected to do things they are neither well-suited nor well-trained for, and the War on Drugs is counterproductive and an abysmal failure. However, from my vantage point the Black Lives Matter movement does not seem to be a quest for justice, equality, and truth. Rather, it seems to be a naked grab for power and influence built upon a foundation of lies, race-baiting, and division.

 

[mrblond]

Well, looks like they are calling it murder. Very bad time to be law enforcement these days.

Rayshard Brooks killing: Former Atlanta Officer Garrett Rolfe charged with murder, could face death penalty

Garrett Rolfe, the Atlanta police officer fired after the killing of Rayshard Brooks last week, now faces 11 charges including felony murder, which could potentially lead to the death penalty, a Georgia district attorney announced Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[bmtm09]

Well, looks like they are calling it murder. Very bad time to be law enforcement these days.

Rayshard Brooks killing: Former Atlanta Officer Garrett Rolfe charged with murder, could face death penalty

Garrett Rolfe, the Atlanta police officer fired after the killing of Rayshard Brooks last week, now faces 11 charges including felony murder, which could potentially lead to the death penalty, a Georgia district attorney announced Wednesday.

www.foxnews.com

This is sickening, it was a good shoot. If people keep treating police like this they will all quit and every city will turn into hunting grounds for predators, and neighborhoods into nightmares. If the perp was white nobody would give a bubblegum

 

[4Freedom]

Well, say goodbye to our police forces across the USA.. Atlanta just kissed goodbye its police force.. Looks like the DA has declared war on Atlanta Police and will be charing the officer with felony murder.

In my opinion, all the police should just freakin walk out.. Even if this wasn't a good shoot, which I think is debatable and leaning in officer's favor, to charge an officer with felony murder is insane!!

The city of Atlanta's actually is a city where discrimination against white people by black professionals and a black elite class is commonplace, but rarely talked about since it violates all the PC laws of our society... Many don't realize that white people are pretty marginalized in Atlanta's black dominated professional circles. But saying anything like that would be racist, right? Since only white people can be racist. How could I forget. I guess I should kneel and beg for forgiveness for my "white privilege".

This is pretty infuriating and I have a funny feeling the mayor, DA and rest of Atlanta's city authorities have little understanding of the repercussions of what they done. To say they will be having to hire private security to protect themselves is an understatement.. I predict a walk-out of police around the country following this stunt pulled off by this racist, white hating DA. YEah, to me if it was a black man who shot him, there would be no way he would be coming out with felony murder charges and I am sure it will also be classified as a hate crime to stir up a race war between white and black people in this country.

Fired Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe charged with felony murder in shooting death of Rayshard Brooks

Ex-Atlanta officer Garrett Rolfe has been charged with felony murder in the death of Rayshard Brooks. He faces the death penalty or life in prison.

www.usatoday.com

Former Atlanta police officer Garrett Rolfe was charged Wednesday with 11 counts, including felony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, in the killing of Rayshard Brooks, the latest in a string of Black people dying after altercations with police.

If convicted, Rolfe is facing the possibility of the death penalty or life in prison.

All I got to say is if they convict this man to death it is time for WE THE PEOPLE to stand up against racism and oppression against white people! To me, they are basically declaring war on whites.. There was no way this was a hate crime and many other LE officials have said it was a good shoot and they were defending themselves against bodily harm and a taser could have taken down these officers and with adrenaline and heat of the moment I am sure the officer had no awareness of how close that taser was to his body . The criminal with multiple felonies already had proven he has no problem attacking cops and taking their weapons.

To charge with felony murder seems to be biased against his race.. How are cops going to do their jobs if in very close life/death situations they can be convicted of murder, death penalty and life imprisonment?

 

[PaulB47]

The guy was sleeping in his car, right? Seems to me the first problem is, rousting a guy sleeping in his car. Would they rather he was out there, driving sleepy (or drunk)?

He took a taser that was (presumably, don't know the details) going to be used on him. I'm not a real fan of tasers.
Experts say trooper's use of Taser on woman raises questions

"Well, I feel if I would have shot a guy in the back holding a taser it would be a very hard case for a civilian like me to fight in court."

Cops' lives are obviously worth more than yours, peon.

To me, it looks like a bad shoot. I know the world is full of bubblegums and violent bums, but come on.